| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | MONDAY COLUMNS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Reflections on Suharto | Main | Rome: Nadal vs. . . . Octavian? »

May 06, 2008

Science and the Apocalypse: On Large Hadron Collider Induced Fears

Faust Philip Ball in news@nature.com:

When in the late 1960s Soviet scientists mistakenly thought they had found a new, waxy form of pure water called polywater, one scientist suggested that it could ‘seed’ the conversion of all the world’s oceans to gloop — a scenario memorably anticipated in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle, in which the culprit was instead a new form of ice. Super-viruses leaked from research laboratories are a favourite source of rumour and fear — this was one suggestion for the origin of AIDS. And nanotechnology was accused of hastening doomsday thanks to one commentator’s fanciful vision of grey goo: replicating nanoscale robots that disassemble the world for raw materials from which to make copies of themselves.

In part, the appeal of these stories is simply the frisson of an eschatological tale, the currency of endless disaster movies. But it is also noteworthy that these are human-made apocalypses, triggered by the heedless quest for knowledge about the Universe.

This is the template that became attached to the Faust legend. Initially a folk tale about an itinerant charlatan with roots that stretch back to the Bible, the Faust story was later blended with the myth of Prometheus, who paid a harsh price for daring to challenge the gods because of his thirst for knowledge. Goethe’s Faust embodied this fusion, and Mary Shelley popularized it in Frankenstein, which she explicitly subtitled ‘Or The Modern Prometheus’. Roslynn Haynes, a professor of English literature, has explored how the Faust myth shaped a common view of the scientist as an arrogant seeker of dangerous and powerful knowledge7.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 04:27 PM | Permalink

Comments

Oh, the poor, dear scientists. Occasional (and I mean occasional) public fears over their discoveries do have faustian/promethian origins. But those myths have survived for a reason: they resonate with a deep truth about knowledge. Knowledge is a-moral, that the pursuit of knowledge can just as easily spell total doom as anything else.

Why do you think Einstein responded to the incineration at Hiroshima by saying ""If I had known they were going to do this, I would have become a shoemaker"?

So, sorry science, you'll have to forgive me for retaining these Faustian intuitions when you're mostly responsible for the creation of weaponry that could vaporize the Earth's ecosystem in a matter of minutes.

Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 6, 2008 10:09:05 PM

LHCConcerns.com will pay $500.00 US to the best proposal that can reasonably prove 5% or less Risk of Planetary destruction from Micro Black Holes.

The contest will conclude in a vote by site visitors on all reasonable proofs received, all proofs will be published and the contest will end not sooner than May 20th. (LHCConcerns will make the final call on best proposal that reasonably proves 5% or lower risk from micro black holes being created by the Large Hadron Collider).

You may prove that ANY ONE of the following or provide any other reasonable Proof or method to prevent Micro Black Holes from being created by the Large Hadron Collider or prove that they are harmless!

1. The Large Hadron Collider will not make micro black holes.
2. Micro black holes created will be sent safely into space.
3. Micro black holes will evaporate.
4. Micro black holes will take more than 2 billion years to accrete the Earth. (If you can only prove a lesser time frame, then the prize will be reduced proportionately...)
5. Any form of cosmic ray argument that proves 5% risk or lower.
6. Find a way to make the Large Hadron Collider safe from creating micro black holes (we already requested different speed collissions or different mass collisions, LSAG told us it was not possible, they already thought of it).

It is harder than it looks, the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) could not produce a safety report... (CERN and LSAG are still using the 1999 RHIC safety report that does not even address what might happen if micro black holes were created, because they did not know that it was possible at that time. We are also being generous on the 2 billion years, we want to be reasonable)

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com

Posted by: JTankers | May 7, 2008 4:22:38 AM

One page states that the LHC will create 10,000,000,000 MBHs/year.

I want one!

Sadly, Hawkings proved that they will evaporate way back in '75 spires.

Too bad. We have a problem with mice. One that smelled like cheese would be a real lifesaver.

Posted by: Carlos | May 7, 2008 5:22:38 AM

Well, if we don't find the Higgs Bosom, things are going to get real interesting. Super symmetry is also on the line. I think we have wandered around in string theory long enough, and aside from some elegant mathematics, have little to show for it other than some interesting power politics among departments and agencies.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | May 7, 2008 11:12:39 AM

Does 3QD have a policy on linking to subscriber-only articles? It was a bit disappointing to click through only to hit a paywall. Especially when this kind of commentary is easy enough to find through publicly-accessible sources.

Posted by: Picador | May 7, 2008 11:24:04 AM

My apologies Picador. The article wasn't behind a subscription wall when I first found and posted it.

Posted by: Robin | May 7, 2008 11:33:09 AM

But Carlos, isn't Hawking's "proof" contingent upon confirmation of the standard model, which the discovery of the Higgs Boson is intended to accomplish? Hawking radiation has never been observed, and in the 33 years since Hawking's paper much has changed in particle theory.

And if we do discover the Higgs Boson, and confirm the standard model, we will have gained what, exactly, that was worth even a miniscule chance of vaporizing the planet?


Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 7, 2008 11:49:51 AM

On the other hand, Chris, the search for the Higgs *Bosom* does sound interesting.

Posted by: Vicki Baker | May 7, 2008 2:36:13 PM

Ms. Higgs: I'm here to give you *super* symmetry.

Old Man: Hmm. Vaht kind of soup?

Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 7, 2008 3:41:23 PM

Everyone realizes, of course, that this is a Kurt Vonnegut novel we're inside -- his true last, I guess, and maybe ours too. The mere suggestion that a supercollider in Switzerland could make short work of the entire planet while its most aristocratic intellects search out the Higgs Boson -- something they might actually want to hold back on, in that it may not need doing /that/ badly -- is the kind of absurdist sci-fi that only Vonnegut could write without being silly.

Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, the I/P dilemma, religious fundamentalism, corporate greed, the bottom billion, foreclosure, cruelty to animals, global warming -- are we worrying about the wrong things? Maybe we should be worrying instead about what the most rational, most intelligent, most truly top-seeded among us are doing in the way of irrationally eliminating their doubts about the, um, downside of their actions. It was minds like this that, in the 70's, sent Skylab up into the heavens without knowing also how to safely bring it down; when its 70,000 tons of stuff fell to Earth, there was a crash landing off the coast of Australia. It didn't have to fall there, for it could not be guided, but that's where it fell. Perhaps we should just count on staying that lucky. That's exactly what we are doing -- is it not?

Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 7, 2008 5:26:47 PM

Elatia, are you invoking the Serenity Prayer?

Skylab out of control, falling out of orbit: can't change. LHC firing up before a full risk analysis by disinterested parties: can change. Wisdom to know the difference: priceless.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 7, 2008 10:19:29 PM

No, Chris -- I haven't given up, or given over. I am truly conCERNed about CERN, and think everyone there needs a good retraining -- fast. That this concern is pooh-poohed by people who understand more physics than I do but too little to arrive at anything like their present level of confidence there will be no "mishaps" in search of the Higgs Boson simply astonishes me. How would you suggest I pull the plug on the LHC? Take Lisa Randall to lunch and look her in the eye and speak my piece? Suggestions are welcome...

Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 7, 2008 10:39:13 PM

Elatia,

I wasn't intending to be sarcastic; sorry if it came off that way. The serenity prayer actually applies very well in this case, since it reminds us not to get too bunched up in either fatalism or micromanaging.

Maybe there's a Make Love Not War type slogan we can come up with: Bosoms not Bosons?

Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 7, 2008 10:56:17 PM

Stories like this merely show that the public understands neither probability, physics nor public policy. Asking the probability that the LHC will create an Earth-destroying black hole makes about as much sense as asking whether you crossing the street in the morning will cause a fifty-car pile-up, killing hundreds. The latter is vastly more probable than the former, so does anybody think you need to file a safety report before your next commute?

Posted by: Xerxes | May 8, 2008 8:27:07 AM

Xerxes, you said it. The part of the public that's restricted to myself certainly does not understand probability, physics or public policy well enough to make with confidence those reassuring calculations that would allow me to abide serenely with the LHC. Multiply my deficits by 2 billion, and you have an accurate picture of how ill-prepared almost everyone is to assess the world-ending risk under discussion. My ignorance however -- amusing as it is -- does not justify every single risk that other and brighter people may work to incur on my behalf.

And your analogy leaves me unsatisfied -- it's imprecise. Please tell me what are my chances of causing the pile-up you describe -- 1 in what number? Next, please define "vastly more improbable." So that you state your case thusly: My chances of causing as a pedestrian a 50-car pile-up killing hundreds are 1 in ___, compared to which, the chances of the LHC creating an earth-destroying black hole are 1 in ___. Can you calculate this way? Will you? If the answer is "No, I was only making a point in a way that highlights the ignorance of others, using real world language they can understand," then I'm afraid you must be horribly precise and illuminating for your point to be cogent. For it is not the ignorance of myself and my ilk that could be seriously undoing here.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 8, 2008 10:21:46 AM

There's another imprecision in Xerxes argument. Whatever happens or doesn't happen under the French-Swiss border when those hadrons start to collide, it will be a matter of physical laws. To talk about causation is sensible in this context.

But a person crossing the street cannot "cause" a 50-car pile up. There are other agents involved--namely other drivers. The person crossing the street did not cause them to drive too fast, or talk on their phones, or lose their spouses to cancer, or any number of things that might distract their attention while he crosses.

But Elatia's point is really the one to answer for. What does it mean to assign probabilities to phenomena we don't understand? (If we understood them we wouldn't need a new supercollider, would we?) We think that Hawking radiation will dissipate micro black holes, but we're not sure. What is the statistical chance that we're wrong?

In other words, it's not true that there's an infinitesimal chance that the LHC will create non-dissipating micro black holes. If Hawking radiation is a valid theory, then there's no chance they will be created. If it's a mistaken theory, all bets are off. We don't know if MBCs can be created at all, or what will become of them if they can.

The blitheness with which those of Xerxes' mindset pretend there is a way to precisely calculate the risk involved here is staggering. At least Faust had a deal with a devil guaranteeing him 24 years. We don't even have that.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 8, 2008 1:16:33 PM

But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again.

Posted by: Carlos | May 9, 2008 10:17:24 AM

Sigh.

- Cosmic rays with nine orders of magnitude more energy have been hitting the earth for billions of years, and even given the enhancement between fixed targets and colliding beams we're producing far less massive particles than are produced routinely all over the planet, and all over the universe.

- The reason these cosmics aren't a substitute for CERN is, essentially, that you'd need MUCH bigger detectors capable of dealing with incredibly high backgrounds. The difficulty with particle physics isn't simply making exotic stuff - Fermilab has produced say ten thousand higgs particles itself. If there are indeed micro blackholes, Fermilab has plausibly produced one or three. The trouble lies in separating interesting stuff from large backgrounds that are well known and understood. It's the needle in a haystack problem that's so hard to solve, not making fancy particles.

- There are careful calculations showing that the smaller a black hole is the more quickly it evaporates, and these cannot be disregarded blithely. At least not without disregarding the considerably more speculative extensions of the standard model in which the LHC would make them. Indeed, no-one would know know what a black hole IS without these physicists.

- Even if *stable* black holes were produced they'd be traveling relativistically, and escape the earth's gravitational field, just like other stable dark matter candidates.

- A black hole outside its event horizon isn't unusually interesting anyway, and particles weighing as little (in macroscopic scales) as these postulated ones have ridiculously tiny event horizons. Indeed, in the context of String theory, electrons and quarks and so on can be understood as black hole states. Nor do you need string theory to understand this - any point particle with mass has a singular energy density and is a black hole in some sense. As in, you ate something like 10^25 black holes for lunch today.

Yes, I understand the precautionary principle. No, it doesn't entail stopping all television broadcasts because the seventh fleet of the Klingon Imperial Navy might be listening.

I think these Charlies basically rely upon
a. the public to ignore science entirely. I mean, why bother with math and physics and stuff when Hollywood knows that mad scientists destroy everything?
b. our discomfort with probabilistic reasoning. As Nima Arkani Hamed put it, the LHC has *some* nonzero production cross section for dragons. It just might happen to produce Jesus antiJesus pairs too.
c. The intelligent design tactic of elevating kookery to Controversy. Just like the intelligent design types, they don't bother with providing calculations of their own. At least the ID types probe a sensible intuition - that the world looks like it might have a designer. All these guys say is "look! sounds science-fictiony. Dangerous!"

Posted by: D | May 9, 2008 6:45:12 PM

D,

Thanks -- that was lucid! Even if you were writing with one arm twisted, your chest full of deep sighs.

I don't think anyone here is elevating misgivings about the LHC to the level of a factitious controversy, however. I for one am not enough of a kook to want such a controversy. All I want is to be reassured with calculations, not snark. Nima Arkani Hamed is cleverer than Xerxes, but mocking people who cannot operate at one's own level is not the same as disposing of their anxieties. If it were, Richard Dawkins would have by now made many more atheists than he has done.

Am I all alone here? Have I the lowest IQ of anyone in the 3QDisphere? I'd have to sniff everyone out like a mother bear finding her own to really know the answer to that, but I'd bet the ranch on my not being the only one here in a gray zone re: understanding the risks of the LHC. Kooks foam at the mouth about it, while scientists (and wannabes) show themselves fuller of disdain than illumination.

It's fatally easy -- is it not? -- to put down anybody who struggles to understand something one sees as almost self-apparent. That may be why your contention that Hollywood finds it natural to pillory scientists as crazy and untrustworthy is accurate. Assuming many lay people are buying this popular culture picture of science as sinister, however, is it not a picture more likely to be reinforced than dispelled by scientists who veer instinctively to sarcasm?

I appreciate your writing so much about this, and it does help. Want to make a reading recommendation?

Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 9, 2008 8:03:53 PM

Elatia,

I tried to provide the best theoretical account I can for why potential LHC black holes aren't dangerous (I'm not a *theoretical* physicist myself), but the variance between that account and ones seen in the popular media (the New York Times editorial was a heartwarming exception) isn't substantially why I was sighing in so Gore-like a manner. Heaven knows there are all sorts of scientific and other matters I know nothing whatsoever about. For example, I haven't the foggiest why vaccines don't cause autism (do they?), or why some suspect they do.

Said sighs had more to do with what I perceive as an automatic and instinctive distrust of expertise, scientific expertise in particular, though I think the phenomenon is more pervasive than that. (Some people have tremendous difficulty with the mere idea that humanists and social scientists can even have expertise.)

Of course expertise can be wrong, even systematically so, but one can't jump from there to "let's all worry about Eggheads destroying civilization", especially if the in-between step is simply noting that that the experts might, after all, be wrong. Anyone might in principle be wrong about anything. More work needs to be done than that, even to err on the side of abundant caution.

Of course, these are all well-worn debates on both sides. Let's just say then that I don't think we begin to be in the regime where the public fawns excessively over expert opinion, whether it's on global warming or tax rates or drug abuse or whether Saddam caused 9/11.

PS: I hope I didn't come across as calling you a kook. I meant the chaps who filed this specific legal challenge ... they've done this sort of thing before, been precisely as indifferent to rational argument and are generally quite the nuisance.
PPS: I rather think if you can name-drop Lisa Randall you know at least the layperson's version of particle physics only too well :) Anyway, I've always enjoyed The Second Creation. An oldie, but definitely a goodie. If you want just a little concreteness, Okun's Alpha, Beta, Gamma...Zeta. Or, if you like your physics gossipy and human, Nobel Dreams.

Posted by: D | May 9, 2008 10:21:20 PM

D,

You sigh because you are weary of an "automatic" mistrust of scientific expertise. But surely you're not arguing the contrapositive, that we should *trust* scientific consenses because of that expertise! The defenders of science against religion go on and on about how what distinguishes science is taking nothing for granted, no matter the authority of the source. Why should that disappear when it comes to the fate of this beautiful planet we hold so dear?

You mention the natural phenomenon of MBHs created by cosmic rays as assurance that we have nothing to fear from any MBHs created in a collider, writing:

given the enhancement between fixed targets and colliding beams we're producing far less massive particles than are produced routinely all over the planet, and all over the universe.

In other words, you anticipate the objection that high energy cosmic rays are interacting with (relatively) motionless particles (meaning that any MBHs they yield would continue their high speed trajectory, passing safely through earth and onward into space). Whereas locally created MBHs would not have sufficient energy to escape gravity before beginning to accrete matter.

But your counterargument contradicts itself. You write that we can't study MBHs that occur naturally because we can't get a good look at them, but getting a good look at them is just what makes them so dangerous, if it turns out that Hawking radiation does not operate as predicted.

Now, I think the best argument that we shouldn't worry about LHC is that if Hawking radiation turns out to be a false principle, then MBHs might not be possible after all. But there are a lot of mights and maybes here. This is everyone's planet, not just the scientists' planet, and we can't do without it. We didn't get a say in launching Skylab, and it turned out the launchers didn't have an exit strategy. We send a lot of plutonium into space with our various craft and probes and when Apollo 13 went bad that could easily have been cataclysmic.

In other words, the reason people jump to the conclusion that the eggheads will destroy civilization, it's partly because of fear of what people don't understand, but also partly because of a long track record of hubris (not just among scientists, but among all ambitious men and women). To dismiss that very important aspect of human nature as superstition or alarmism is to court big big trouble.

The arguments made in defense of the safety of CERN are (to this layman) quite weak, especially in light of what is at stake. And what's the best case scenario? That some particle physicists get to try to verify their theory of everything, that has no practical applications.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 9, 2008 11:10:46 PM

Chris -

I really do want to disclaim the notion that scientific authority need merely be asserted to be unquestionable. But if you want to say you're the next Einstein, be prepared to be greeted with skepticism. And using the "listen to me or the world will come to an end" card doesn't substitute for meaningful argument. On to the physics:

In other words, you anticipate the objection that high energy cosmic rays are interacting with (relatively) motionless particles (meaning that any MBHs they yield would continue their high speed trajectory, passing safely through earth and onward into space).

I was anticipating a different objection, that what matters is how much energy the collision has in its center of mass frame, not how much energy one particle has. As it happens, the high energy cosmics I mention are far too high energy for that to suffice.

This objection is interesting though...these stable black holes are really so non-interacting as to all pass through the earth over billions of years without once interacting with thousands of km of material. Only one would have to interact and start “accreting” material. And the same is the case for other planets and the sun and nearby stars and far away stars…at least the universe isn’t dramatically overpopulated with black-holes. Sounds pretty much like a dark matter candidate to me. In a detector, its signature would be the same as for all the other sources of "missing energy", like neutrinos and the postulated lightest supersymmetric particle and so on. Why are we worrying about this again?

locally created MBHs would not have sufficient energy to escape gravity before beginning to accrete matter.

A 1000 GeV black hole with momentum of just 1 GeV moves at 4% light speed, about 40 million kilometers per hour. Escape velocity is 0.03% the speed of light. Such a particle zips a thousand kilometers up the earths atmosphere in 80 milliseconds. Surely particles that traverse the whole earth all the time, never interacting and have done so for billions of years…

Also note that what makes galactic black holes such ill behaved creatures is principally how heavy they are. You could have meanwhile even a stable Planck mass black hole (you're the one positing such things; don't ask me how they happen) right at your nose and never notice it...a Planck mass is about five billionths of a kilogram. Of course that's still sixteen orders of magnitude heavier than anything we’ll make…

But your counterargument contradicts itself. You write that we can't study MBHs that occur naturally because we can't get a good look at them, but getting a good look at them is just what makes them so dangerous, if it turns out that Hawking radiation does not operate as predicted.

The reason *I* said we can't "get a good look" at high energy cosmics instead of making colliders is simply one of practicality: I know of no way to make them all hit the earth at roughly the same spot so we can build detectors there. Unless you want to fund the next pan American particle detector (I don't even mean a collider ring here, I mean an honest to goodness instrumented space spanning a continent or more), I don't see how to make the effort meaningful. Even if you did THAT, the flux would be absurdly dwarfed by all the low energy garbage the sky also spits out at us, with no obvious way of triggering to separate interesting events from nonsense.

Posted by: D | May 10, 2008 1:36:37 AM

Okay D,
You obviously know quite a bit more than most of us about these atomic fights and who's favored to win. But can you not hear the rationality behind the non-expert's sideline plea. We would not be concerned at all if some scientists had not raised concerns - are they just boneheads, well prove it. These imbecile, C-threepeeoish calculations of a bizillion to whatever odds that make it all worth it, are still unacceptable to those of us without a gambling temperament. And attempts to lump those with doubt, into superstitious progress-phobic dumb-dumbs, won't cut it. World at stake and that kind of stuff, you know?

Posted by: Jesse | May 10, 2008 6:31:40 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Z-lot on Are Saint-Simonians Responsible for Modernity

    Winfield J. Abbe on The Effects of the Religious Right on Politics and on Religion

    Jesse on literary science?

    chris on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    yaqoob pasha on Burqa ban!

    Elatia Harris on literary science?

    OT on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    fgh on Physicists could soon be creating black holes in the laboratory

    Philip Graham on literary science?

    Ulle V. Holt on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on After Guantánamo

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Hauser and Morris on Science and Morality

    Pete Chapman on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Saint-Simonians Responsible for Modernity

    J on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Jennifer Ouellete's Top Ten at the World Science Festival

    JonJ on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    C. M. R. on literary science?

    Jared on literary science?

    Bilal on Friday Poem

    Transleitor on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Chris Schoen on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Acclaim For 3QD

    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed